Friday, July 31, 2009

I am a serious fan of the Cleopatra Jones movies from the early 1970s.

Cleopatra Jones, portrayed by the late Tamara Dobson, was an African-American secret service agent who fought drugs in her community and overseas.

It's a shame that only two movies, Cleopatra Jones and Cleopatra Jones and the Casino of Gold, were made. They were landmarks in motion picture cinema because it was one of the few times that a black woman took centerstage in a movie and probably the first time a black actress played an action hero.

However, there were some problems, particularly with the choice of villain Cleopatra Jones had to combat.

They were both lesbian drug lords. A lesbian villain in one movie wouldn't be bad, but the makers of the Cleopatra Jones made it a point to include a lesbian as the villain in both.

And to me that sends a bad message. Why not a man? Why not a heterosexual woman?

However again, there is a silver lining to this cloud. The actresses who played the drug lords did a rather good job, proving that talent can always transcend stereotyping and bad parts.

I'm almost ashamed to admit that I loved her performance. Winters (whose career was not damaged at all by this movie) is having fun with the role. She comes on the screen with all of the subtlety of a speeding train.

The following scene (beginning at 6:21) displays best what I mean as she berates a henchman for missing a chance to kill Jones. A fun game to play while watching this movie is to count how many costume changes and wigs Dobson and Winters go through.

Now in Cleopatra Jones and the Casino of Gold, actress Stella Stevens takes a more serious tone with her role of the Dragon Lady and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Whereas Winters went for superbutch extreme, Stevens is played her character as a sensuous woman equally adept at binding up her hair and leading her army in pursuit of doublecrossers or putting on a cocktail dress and charming patrons of her casino.

Subsequently, she and Dobson engage in a long drawn out fight scene, unlike Winters who has a short fight with Dobson before her demise.

Unfortunately I can only provide the trailer of the movie in the following clip. But it gives you a good impression of the Dragon Queen.

Now the only problem I had with Stevens's character is the relationship between her and her Asian adopted daughter. It is obvious the Stevens's character has taken a, shall we say, less than maternal interest in the girl. Particularly when she has her brutally murdered for helping Cleopatra Jones.

Editor's note - The fight scene from Cleopatra Jones and the Casino of Gold is here for anyone who wants to view it.

Sadly,(Harvey) Milk and his many partners could be poster boys for an analysis produced by authors from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that shows the widespread degree to which men who have sex with men were abused as children.

Later in life, Milk condemned child predators. But he evidently never made the connection with his own childhood sexual abuse or that of his partners. Nor does he ever question the brokenness that surrounds him – drugs, risky sexual behavior, alcohol abuse, depression and suicide – except to blame society.

And it begins.

Jeff Johnston of Focus on the Family has written an irresponsible piece on Harvey Milk that is all over the map. It looks like the piece was created to criticize the movie Milk but tailored to include talking about Milk's recent selection as a Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient.

Johnston is clearly trying to imply that Milk was "introduced into gay sex" by older men.

He is also pulling the "gays lead lives full of promiscuous sex and other risky behavior" factoid in an effort to denigrate Milk and create the idea that President Obama erred in giving Milk the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

For the record, Johnston is being highly deceptive when he invokes the Centers for Disease Control's name because he isn't even citing the organization's work but a link to another Focus on the Family piece, Childhood Sexual Abuse and Male Homosexuality.

The irony is that piece freely cites work from Straight and Narrow which was written by Thomas Schmidt. Schmidt is not a doctor but a theologian who freely cited Paul Cameron in Straight and Narrow.

Now about Johnston's other assertions, I will be honest. I don't know if Milk was promiscuous and I don't really care.

I don't know if Milk was "introduced to sex by an older man" and again I don't care.

What Johnston is doing is blaming Milk for the something he could not control but worked to end.

We know how things were back then for lgbts. Gay men were not free to be out or open abou their lives for fear of reprisals. There is a lot of shame in secrecy and with shame comes bad behaviors.

Also, lgbt children could not be open either. So when they found enclaves where they could be open (be it Fire Island or whatever), they went full speed ahead.

The only implication Johnston and I agree on is the fact that this is not a way to live.

But if Johnston or Focus on the Family in general feel that there was something wrong with the decisions that Milk and other lgbts made in light of the world they had to deal with, then they would stop trying to hinder the progression of lgbt rights.

Every time Focus on the Family and other so-called moral groups attack lgbt clubs in our schools or any other thing that would help lgbts, they work to create the unfortunate world where there is shame and secrecy for those who don't fit the heterosexual orientation.

Johnston's and Focus on the Family's attack on Milk clearly reinforces the fact that he is highly deserving of the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

They exploit a world of shame and fear.

Milk worked to destroy it.

He taught lgbts to stand up and demand our respect, to not hide in dark corners, and not let the world define us.

Thursday, July 30, 2009

I'm a patient man and in the case of religious right wannabe backlash against Harvey Milk receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom, I know my patience will pay off.

I'm just waiting for the so-called main groups (i.e. Concerned Women for America, the Family Research Council) and the pathetic hanger-ons (i.e. Peter LaBarbera, Matt Barber, Linda Harvey) to say something.

My guess is that they are trying to formulate some talking points or a way to make their disagreement with Milk's choice sound less homophobic.

In particular, they are probably going to try something a few of them attempted when the movie Milk premiered - connecting Harvey Milk with Jim Jones and the People's Temple. You will remember that the Jim Jones led over 900 of his followers to a mass suicide in Guyana, South America a few days before Milk was assasinated. Before that incident, Jones was heavily involved in San Francisco politics.

My guess is that we will all be seeing more innuendo scandalizing Milk's name before this thing ends.

In the meantime, folks at that lovely site, Free Republic, have interesting things to say about Harvey Milk's honor. And here I thought Thursday was going to be boring:

Obama is an airhead.

Sick people creating a sick Nation.

milk set about to “improve the world”

that’s a real stretch... bringing sodomy into the normal American experience improves the world? Why not include beastality? that’s also as anal intercourse!! When did Right and Wrong die?

obamanation is just that... a horrible obamanation against America

Instead of a medal it should have been a cutoff of all funds for AIDS treatment!

Milk already got the “medal” he deserved. From Dan White!

Hmmm giving a medal to a dead guy. Guess he won’t be there to pick it up.

The Rebirth of the Center for Reclaiming America - And speaking of that lie, it gets shot down by People for the American Way in the midst of a report about some awful religious right conference. As the article says, we should be hearing more from the conference attendees as time goes on.

Barber is trying to rally anger against the company Home Depot for "daring" to provide venues for children at Pride events:

Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel tells OneNewsNow the home improvement store is facilitating the exposure of children to sinful behavior.

"Out of some kind of notion of political correctness and being tolerant, Home Depot is contributing to all of this," he notes. "They're contributing to the corruption of children, and they need to answer for that."

Personally I approve of Home Depot's actions because despite Barber's hyperbole, the fact of the matter is that:

a. many same-sex families include children

b. not all Pride events fit the stereotype of half naked men and women running around in open areas dancing to disco music and bumping and grinding into each other.

Down here in Columbia, SC, we are proud of the fact that our lgbt festival is highly family friendly.

Barber's diatribe proves just how the religious right want to paint us into a corner when it comes to children. They are always quick to imply that we harm children but never address the fact that we are raising children.

Think about it. When folks like Maggie Gallagher and Barber talk about how same-sex marriage will hurt children, they never acknowledge the fact that lgbt families have children.

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

I've written about the David Parker controversy a few times so allow me to regurgitate my breakdown of the situation yet again. This time, however, I want to put it in another context.

David Parker cares so deeply that he is willing to go to jail and endure a lengthy court process for the right to be a parent. In a world where a myriad of social problems can be traced back to parental abuse or indifference, it is incredible that Parker is being treated as a criminal and not as the hero he is. - Wendy McElroy, Parental Rights vs. Public Schools

------------------------------------------------------------

Well, homosexual relationships are, by their nature, sexual. The, you know, the movement is trying to say no, it's not. But you know, there's a big elephant in the middle of the room here, and we're not recognizing it. - Brian Camenker, head of Mass Resistance

I don't want the school to determine the timing and manner when this stuff is brought up. I want him to play on the swing set and make mud pies. I don't want him thinking about same-sex unions in kindergarten. - Massachusetts parent David Parker

Does an elementary school have the right to indoctrinate children in their view of controversial moral issues without the knowledge or consent of parents? That is the issue that the U.S. Supreme Court may decide. Matt Barber, CWA's Policy Director for Cultural Issues, speaks with David Parker, a Lexington, Massachusetts parent, who is petitioning the high court, hoping it will accept his appeal of a First Circuit Court decision on his case. In 2005, Parker was arrested at his son's school following a classroom lesson on same-sex marriage using the book King & King. The principal at Esterbrook Elementary School in Lexington defended the King & King lesson and denied parents the right to be informed about it and to opt their kids out. - Concerned Women for America

When a controversy happens regarding gay rights, religious right organizations are quick to jump into the situation and exploit it for their own purposes regardless of what the truth may be.A perfect example would be the case involving Massachusetts parent David Parker.

In April 2005, Parker was arrested for trespassing when he refused to leave his son’s school, Eastabrook Elementary, in Lexington, MA. He was angry that his son, who was at the time in kindergarten, was sent home with a “diversity book bag.” He objected to a book in the package because it showed a child in a same-sex household.

Parker contended that the school was encroaching on his right as a parent to talk to his son about issues of sexuality. He met with school officials and was arrested when he refused to leave after the meeting. He claimed that any mention of same-sex parents constituted a talk of human sexuality and that Massachusetts law guaranteed that he could opt his child out of the discussion. Parker also claimed that school officials were not giving him assurances that this would happen.

At first glance, it seems that the case of David Parker was one of a concerned father attempting to be able to raise his child in the way he sees fit. As you can see, religious right groups certainly claimed that was the case. And unfortunately they were aided by folks like Wendy McElroy and Bill O'Reilly who apparently never realized journalism involves more than just writing and interviewing folks. A little investigation never hurts matters.

Which is what I did. And what I found was a case a bit more complex.

Distortion—David Parker objected to his child being exposed to homosexuality because it was an issue of sexuality and Joseph Estabrook Elementary refused to accommodate him

Truth—In a January 17, 2005 email to the school, Parker said: “There is a book included entitled, Who’s in a Family (with pictures) that include lesbian and homosexual couples with children—implicitly equating this family structure as a morally equal alternative to other family constructs. We stand firmly against this book or any other subject matter pertaining to homosexuality ever being indoctrinated to our child, discussed in school, or sent home. We don’t believe gay parents constitute a spiritually healthy family and should not be celebrated.”

Joseph Estabrook Elementary principal, Joni Jay, wrote Parker an email clearly saying homosexuality is not a part of the kindergarten curriculum. She also said she cannot control what students say to one another and that many children attending Joseph Estabrook Elementary live in same-sex households.

Point of fact: The entire controversy began because Parker’s son brought home a “diversity bookbag” with several items in it. Among them was a book showing certain types of families, including same-sex families. It was the only book in the packet that talked about anything of a homosexual nature.

Distortion—Parker was well within his rights because Massachusetts laws says parents must give permission to have their children discuss any issue involving human sexuality.

Truth—Parker was not well within his right because discussions of differing families, including gay-led households are not included in the parental notification policy. This is because it is not an issue about human sexuality. Principal Jay informed Parker of this on March 4, 2005. Jay said she confirmed this with the district assistant superintendent and the director of Health Education. She was answering an email in which Parker said that neither he nor his wife authorize any teacher or adult to “expose” his sons (Parker has two sons) to “any sexual orientation/homosexual material/same sex unions between parents.”

Point of fact: The night before Parker’s arrest, he addressed the Lexington School Committee during their public meeting. In his speech, he attempted to link gay-led households to sexual behavior:

“Children who are successfully indoctrinated that same-sex marriage is normal and correct will eventually understand that sexual intimacy is a part of this union. Let’s not be naive about the implied human sexuality aspect of same-sex unions. Let’s be honest with ourselves. When we accept same-sex unions, we accept its implied . . . sexual intimacy. These concepts are indeed inextricably linked.”

Distortion—David Parker was arrested because Joseph Estabrook Elementary did not respect his rights as a parent.

Truth—David Parker was arrested for trespassing. Even though his initial questions were answered, Parker persisted and finally received another meeting with school officials. According to a press release issued by William J. Hurley, Interim Superintendent of Schools and Christopher Casey, Chief of Police in Lexington, Parker and his wife requested that the school, in the future, ensure that teachers automatically remove their children from discussions of same-sex households, even if the issue rises spontaneously. It was explained to Parker and his wife that the policy allowing students to opt out of discussions of human sexuality was not relevant here and the Parkers’ request was “not practical” because children could discuss “such matters among themselves at school.”

When Parker and his wife were told that they could appeal the response to the Commissioner of Education, Parker did not want to. It was then that the two decided not to leave the school. The Lexington Police were called. Parker’s wife went to the couple’s car but he stayed. Two plain-clothed detectives came at 5:20 p.m. and a police lieutenant came at 6 p.m. All asked Parker to leave but he refused.

Distortion—David Parker did not intentionally get arrested. According to his lawyer, Jeffrey Denner:

“He (Parker) was invited to come in, he came in, there was a dialogue going back and forth, there were faxes sent back and forth to the school committee. His intent was not to get arrested. His intent was to establish a dialogue to protect his own children and other children as well.”—Father faces trial over school’s ‘pro-gay’ book, WorldNetDaily, August 4, 2005

Truth—According to the press release submitted by Hurley and Casey, Parker said “If I’m not under arrest, then I’m not leaving.” The press release also said Parker began calling people on his cell phone and a small group of people began arriving with cameras. Parker was finally arrested at 6:24 p.m. The group with the camera was waiting behind the police station and photographed his arrival.

Mass Resistance (Massachusetts conservative group) claimed that Parker was using his cell phone in order to keep his wife up to date with the meeting while she sat in the couple’s car.Point of fact: There are pictures of Parker being arrested and led away by police on the Mass Resistance web page. Now how could any of this have happened by chance? For that matter, there are pictures of Parker addressing the Lexington School Committee the night before his arrest. The fact that these pictures are on the web page do give an impression of premeditation by Parker and Mass Resistance.

Distortion—David Parker got into this fight solely because of his concern for his children and what they are being exposed to in school.

Truth—Since his arrest, Parker has been speaking against gay rights in other states. On June 13 and 14 of that same year, he was the speaker in a six-town “Wake UP Maine” tour with Brian Camenker, the head of Mass Resistance. The purpose was to aid a Maine referendum against the recently passed bill outlawing discrimination against the gay community. A flyer was distributed showing Parker in handcuffs. The flyer also claimed that Parker “questioned the homosexual rights movement.”

The image of Parker in handcuffs had made its way around several web pages like some sort of bastardized picture of Che Guevera. He also appeared in a commercial in another effort to overturn the Maine anti-discrimination bill. In addition, the Family Research Council filmed an interview with Parker as a part of a successful effort to pass Proposition 8 in California. The organization referenced the Parker controversy in writings about gay marriage in California.

And then don’t forget this interesting addendum:

In May 2006, Parker’s son was involved in a fight at school with a friend over seating in the school cafeteria. His son and the other student made peace with each other and continued to be friends. They even had a play date later that week. In addition, Parker was informed as to what happened.

However, less than a month later, the Mass Resistance sent out a press release claiming that Parker’s son was set upon by eight to 10 students who did not appreciate his fight against Joseph Estabrook Elementary. The press release generated considerable buzz with the anti-gay industry, as it was either run or referenced by many so-called “pro-family” web pages, including the Traditional Values Coalition and Concerned Women for America.

Joseph Estabrook Elementary School explained the true story in a press release. However, none of the so-called “pro-family” groups, including Mass Resistance and the Traditional Values Coalition, apologized for any of their claims about a conspiracy to hurt Parker’s son nor did they correct the error.

By the way, in 2007, a federal judge dismissed Parker's case against the school and in 2008, the Supreme Court also denied his case.

However, it is clear that when controversy involving us take place, the lgbt community must be highly vigilant in getting the truth out as soon as possible.

Otherwise the situation becomes another file in the religious right cabinet of lies.

Home Depot building a 'le-gay-cy' for children - Oh look. One News Now has taken time from its busy schedule of Obama bashing to print more sleazy lies about the lgbt community courtesy of Matt Barber. How dare Home Depot support lgbt families!

Michael Brown, director of director of Coalition of Conscience and leader of the protest against Charlotte Pride last weekend, doesn't appreciate what I wrote about him in a yesterday's blog post.

You will remember that I called Mr. Brown to the carpet for talking about how he loved the lgbt community while at the same time repeating some of the ugliest religious right pieces of propaganda.

Most specifically, I pointed out how he claimed that there was a plot by the media to obscure the homosexuality of Frank Lombard, the Duke University official who was recently arrested for molesting his five-year-old black son.

Brown and I had an exchange. And as you can see, his answers leave a lot to be desired:

Michael Brown :

Alvin,

A quick note from Dr. Brown here. First, just a reminder that I'd love to take you for lunch the next time you're in Charlotte. The invitation stands.

Second, I'm quite baffled by your charge of hypocrisy. I've been forthright and consistent in the five years I've been addressing these issues in Charlotte. . .

I have consistently said that the church has often been insensitive to the struggles faced by LGBT individuals, and that we have sinned against you by making homosexuality out to the worst of sins, and I apologized for that (publicly, in 2006, 2008, and 2009).

I have consistently proclaimed God's transforming love to the LGBT community in settings too numerous to mention (most recently at Pride Charlotte).

And I have consistently stood firmly against many of the goals of gay activism.

What has now been revealed that wasn't known before? Where is the hypocrisy? I'm genuinely baffled by the charge.

Your statements speak for themselves. And by statements, I mean your original words to the media, especially concerning the Frank Lombard situation.

I wanted to clarify that because I noticed in your long comment to me just now, you did not address what you said regarding the alleged conspiracy by the media to not call out Lombard's sexual orientation.

How convenient of you.

Michael Brown:

Alvin, I do not have the time to interact with your entire post, so I focused on your headline, exposing its falsehood. So, please drop the "how convenient" stuff, OK?

As for my statements, yes, they speak for themselves, loudly and clearly, and so there is no hypocrisy or duplicity, only forthright speech.

As for the Frank Lombard situation, I agree with what Dr. Mike Adams and others have pointed out in their writings on the subject.

Just for the record, a friend asked me to take a minute to respond to your article here after he spotted it, and I was happy to do so, but I don't have time for extended dialog in this setting, especially when your whole premise of "hypocrisy" is false. Talk about headless monsters! How about meaningless headlines?

Don't blame Mike Adams or anyone else for what you said regarding the Frank Lombard situation. Again, I notice how you are not willing to talk about the lie you repeated about a media plot.

Your comments were false, totally un-Christian, and by their very nature insults the same sex parents who go far and beyond the call of duty to provide for their children. Furthermore, your continued sad attempts to sidestep your comments reveal not only to me but to everyone else who reads this blog as to how utterly false your declarations of love for the lgbt community are.

Again, how very convenient.

So there you are, dear readers - the words of a man who will not only lie on the lgbt community, a man who will talk about how he loves us while implying about plots to cover up the molesting of children.

And when he is exposed, he doesn't do the Christian thing and apologize. No, he continues to dig that hole deeper.

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles . . .

With that thought in mind, I have tried to educate myself and others on the manipulations of the religious right. You see it's not enough to call them "homophobes" or "haters" anymore than it is not enough for a prosecutor in a trial to point at a defendant and call him guilty.

There must be some proof of the charges.

I have a theory that in this so-called cultural battle, our fight isn't totally with those who have a personal religious belief that homosexuality is a sin. It's not an idea that I prescribe to but I am of the opinion that people with differing beliefs can co-exist up to a point.

Granted there are some people who are rabidly anti-gay, but this piece isn't about them.

My theory and all of my focus have been on the religious right organizations who manipulate people's religious beliefs and personal fears to make the lgbt community the boogeymen or the "big nasty other" in American society.

I've talked in the past about their distortion techniques. Last week, I talked about discredited researcher Paul Cameron and his relation to the religious right as to how these groups continue to use his bad data.

Today, I want to show how these groups have their own ways of distorting credible research.

I have read countless religious right papers and studies and have discovered that in many if not all of them, many of the same studies are being distorted.

It’s as if the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, the American Family Association and other affiliate groups have some type of file cabinet with an assortment of legitimate studies that they can pull out and distort. I want to show you just a few. Some you have already seen these before but a refresher course never hurts anyone:

Distortion - Lgbt homes are not ideal homes to raise children because gay supportive researcher Judith Stacey said so in her study:

“A study conducted by Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, sociologists at the University of Southern California, revealed that children raised by homosexual couples ‘seem to grow up to be more open to homoerotic relationships.’ The study showed that 12 percent of girls raised in lesbian homes became active lesbians themselves—increasing the likelihood of lesbianism by more than 400 percent.” - Fast Facts, Gay Adoption, Coral Ridge Ministries

Researcher Judith Stacey thinks that children do well in homosexual homes. She says her study found that girls brought up by lesbians show greater interest in masculine activities and dress and seek non-traditional female jobs. Boys in lesbian homes are more feminine and more nurturing. Children in these homes also become sexually active with same-sex partners. -Children In Homosexual Homes Become Sexually Confused, Traditional Values Coalition

Truth - Judith Stacey had gone on record numerous times decrying how her research in lgbt homes have been distorted. According to respectmyresearch.org:

. . . Stacey and Biblarz noted preliminary evidence of some “modest and interesting” differences between children raised by heterosexual parents and children raised by lesbian and gay parents, but they affirmed that “parental sexual orientation has no measurable effect on the quality of parent-child relationships or on children’s mental health or adjustment.”

In addition, via this link, she calls Focus on the Family to the carpet for distorting her work.

A study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined conflict and violence in lesbian relationships. The researchers found that 90 percent of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study, with 31 percent reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse.” - Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples, Family Research Council

There is a higher rate of violence in lesbian and homosexual relationships than in married, heterosexual relationships. A study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined conflict and violence in lesbian relationships. The researchers found that 90% of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study, with 31% reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse. - Same-Sex Parenting is Harmful to Children Says REAL Women of Canada, Lifesite News

Truth - According to the Journal of Interpersonal Violence’s own web page:

The Journal of Interpersonal Violence offers the most up-to-date information on domestic violence, rape, child sexual abuse and other violent crimes . . . Focusing on both victims and perpetrators, the journal examines theoretical links between all types of interpersonal violence, exploring the similarities and differences between these types of crimes.

In other words, the Journal of Interpersonal Violence tracks domestic violence, as well as other violent crimes.

Those surveyed in journal articles are the victims of violence, verbal or otherwise, because this is what the journal is designed to track.

However, what religious right groups are doing here is the equivalent of taking a study of domestic violence in the African-American community published in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence and using it to allege that black relationships are indicative of violent behavior.

Homosexual households are also more prone to domestic violence. For example: “The incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population,” according to D. Island and P. Letellier in Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them - Gay Marriage is Not Only Wrong, It’s Socially Destructive, Concerned Women for America

"The bottom line is, a man involved in homosexual behavior is 500 times more likely to be the victim of violence, violent assault at the hands of his own homosexual ‘lover’ --a ‘love crime’ -- than he is to be a victim of a so-called ‘hate crime’ committed against him by someone who doesn’t like the fact that he’s involved in that kind of lifestyle,” Glenn says.

Instead of making use of current literature or statistics, Glenn selects two passages from our book, from pages 12 and 50, and links them together (I quote him verbatim here, the mis-use of quotation marks is his):

"Island and Letellier also estimate that 'domestic violence may effect and poison as many as 50 percent of gay couples, while 'we believe [heterosexual domestic abuse] is closer to 20 percent." In fact, as we clearly state in our book, the 50% figure is an estimate provided to us by an anti-violence project, and in the paragraphs following our mention of that figure, Dr. Island and I refute it and come up with what we believe is a more reasonable - and significantly lower - estimate of about 21%.

Sometimes context really is everything. What Glenn also fails to mention is that the estimate of 20% that Dr. Island and I make (regarding heterosexual battering) was a challenge to other researchers who claimed that as many as 80% of heterosexual men batter their partners. Here's the whole quote: "We disagree. No body of data supports their contentions. We believe that far too many husbands in America are violent, but their proportion is closer to 20% than 80%."

Distortion - Homosexuals have a lot of sex partners and their relationships do not last Part 1.

Studies indicate that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime, a lifestyle that is difficult for even "committed" homosexuals to break free of and which is not conducive to a healthy and wholesome atmosphere for the raising of children. A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with five hundred or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners - Homosexuality, Placing Children at Risk, Family Research Council

Point of fact - FRC removed this study from its webpage. A representative of the organization told me that the information contained in the study was outdated. However, as you can see by the link, this message didn’t get to other supporters of FRC

Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg studied 574 white male homosexuals, 100 percent of whom had already had at least three sexual partners, 97 percent at least ten, 75 percent at least one hundred, and 28 percent at least one thousand. - House Dems Try to Hide Homosexual Agenda on “Bullying” Bill, American Family Association of Michigan

Truth - Bell and Weinberg’s study was compiled in the 1970s. They used the study to write the book Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity among Men and Women. In Homosexualities is this statement:

“. . . given the variety of circumstances which discourage homosexuals from participating in research studies, it is unlikely that any investigator will ever be in a position to say that this or that is true of a given percentage of all homosexuals.”

Distortion - Homosexuals have a lot of sex partners and their relationships do not last Part 2

“Well, what does a homosexual marriage look like? Well the longest term that we have to take a look at it is in the Netherlands. And one sociologist made a study of that and found out that the average marriage between two men lasts 1.5 years. Furthermore, they don’t even believe really in monogamous marriages. On average, the average married homosexual man has 8 other sexual partners per year. So those year and a half marriages involved also sex with 12 other men during that time.” - The late Rev. James Kennedy, Coral Ridge Ministries

“The journal AIDS reported that in the Netherlands, where “gay marriage” has been legal since 2001, HIV and other diseases are soaring among homosexual men. The study notes that “partnered” homosexuals have “outside” lovers, and are contracting the AIDS virus at alarming rates.” - The Real Costs of Gay Marriage and Civil Unions, Concerned Women for America

Truth - The study referenced in these two examples was conducted by one Maria Xiridou of the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service. Her study did not look at gay marriage but was to "access the relative contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam and to determine the effect of increasing sexually risky behaviours among both types of partnerships in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy."

For this study, Dr. Xiridou received her information from the Amsterdam Cohort Study of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and AIDS Among Homosexual Men. To gain this information, researchers studied 1,800 gay men between the years of 1984- 2000. Same sex marriage was legalized in the Netherlands in 2001, thus making the information irrelevant to points about gay marriage. Information for the Amsterdam Cohort Study is found here.

And last but certainly not least . . .

Distortion - Gays have a short life span

“In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age twenty for gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged twenty years will not reach their sixty-fifth birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.” - Getting it Straight, Family Research Council

According to a study that appeared in the International Journal of Epidemiology, homosexual behavior risks cutting years off the lives of “gay” men. Examining the homosexual community in Vancouver, Canada, the study said: “In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. . .” - Sexual suicide, The American Family Association

Truth - As I have said numerous times, in 2001, the researchers of this study complained about how it was being misused. They explained what they actually meant and how it is not feasible to use their work to claim that gay men have a "short life span."

Point of fact - In 2008, Matt Barber of the Liberty Counsel addressed the researchers’ complaints by claiming that they were pressured to make this statement. However (surprise, surprise) Barber did not give any further detail as to who pressured them or when this alleged pressure supposedly happened.

The point here is not just to call attention to this misinformation but also spell out what it means.
These inaccurate interpretations of the mentioned studies are not indicative of just one religious right group, they are indicative of a large number if not all religious right groups.

The problematic issue of lgbt rights is bad enough when one debates it on a religious and ethical level, but when science is added, the stakes are higher.

Religious right groups push the idea that lgbt rights are bad not only on a moral level but also that there is "scientific proof" that lgbts rights are bad on a medical level.

But they gain the proof through either intentional or unintentional misreadings of studies and constant repetition of those studies even when their errors are pointed out.

In short, the lgbt community has to do more than just label religious right groups as “haters,” “bigots,” and “homophobes.” This labeling provides transitory visibility and simple cosmetics to a problems that is deeper than anyone can imagine.

The religious right have skillfully crafted a body of inaccuracies about the lgbt community backed by misinterpreted studies. And this body is easily transported to almost every other so-called traditional value groups across state and country lines. It can also be used by legislators who already have anti-gay biases but are looking for "justification" for their prejudices.

Someone standing in front of Congress, state legislatures, school boards, or speaking on talk shows and saying that “Studies done by eminent researchers and physicians have found that homosexuality includes a level of promiscuity, relationship abuse, and a shorter life span and therefore gays should not be allowed to adopt children or have the right to marry, ” has more weight than just espousing a personal religious and moral opinion against homosexuality.

Now someone could easily say “so these studies have been used incorrectly. The theory that homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle is still sound.”

But if the theory that “homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle” is true, then why do these religious right groups have to distort data to prove it’s veracity?

Clear objective: 'Change hearts, minds' re: homosexuality - From the webpage of One News Now - how dare network television show lgbts as normal people! Pay attention to the article because the person interviewed, Colleen Raezler of the Culture and Media Institute, dances around the "gays have a shorter lifespan" lie.

Last weekend, over 10,000 folks attended Charlotte Pride in North Carolina and for the most part, had a very good time.

This happened despite the fact that over 500 protestors came out to try and spoil their fun. As you can see by the pictures, the red-shirted protestors came out to talk about "God has another way;" no doubt some nonsense about God didn't make people gay and stuff like that.

The leaders, Michael Brown, director of Coalition of Conscience had this to say:

“We’re praying to make them know that god, he loves them, that they’re not cast out, rejected and hated, and that there is a better way than gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender, and that’s found in Jesus,” Brown said.

There is an old saying which goes "beware of Greeks bearing gifts."

Let me amend that to say "beware of religious right figures talking about sharing Christ with lgbts."

Simply because right before that statement of "love" and "sharing," Brown rambles about "boys going to school dressed as girls" and lgbt families intentionally denying children homes with both a mother and a father.

All of the religious right propaganda speech in other words.

In a full statement to the media, Brown lists anecdotes of how the so-called gay agenda is hurting America. You've heard them all before. But one stands out in my mind due to the way that Brown phrased it:

We believe it is outrageous for the media to cover up the gay identity of a sexual predator who repeatedly raped his adopted, five-year-old African American son and offered him for sex through the internet - for fear of making homosexual couples look bad.

This statement is referring to the Frank Lombard situation. For the benefit of those who do not know, Lombard is a gay Duke University official arrested for molesting his five-year-old adopted African-American son and offering him for sex via the internet.

An awful crime. But what's more awful is how members of the religious right and conservative movement have been implying that there was some sort of conspiracy by the media to obscure the fact that Lombard is gay for fear of attacking lgbt couples.

This is a lie. And it is no different than racist David Duke saying that the media covers up an alleged fact that black people supposedly commit more crimes so as to not make African-Americans look bad.

The irony is that members of Brown's protest had to sign a pledge to be nonviolent.

That's all well and good but something should be said for Brown's hypocrisy. He comes to the lgbt community talking about peace and love while repeating religious right anti-gay propaganda and lies designed not to start discussion but to make people fear lgbts

Monday, July 27, 2009

This week may be shaping up to feature anti-gay figure Peter LaBarbera.

Last night, I talked about how he channeled a Paul Cameron factoid (i.e. lie) about homosexuality being more dangerous than cigarettes.

But what he did today takes the cake. I simply could not pass it by.

LaBarbera is known for going to subcultural leather events, taking pictures of the activities there, and posting them on his webpage in an attempt to generalize about the entire lgbt community.

That's why he is known as "Porno Petey" in some circles.

Far be it from him to disappoint us this year. He has just posted pictures from what is called "Up Your Alley," a street fair in San Francisco. LaBarbera made a point to post lots of pictures of naked folks and others engaged in lewd acts.

And included is his commentary about those "nasty homosexuals." This is a supposed acount of acts from a Americans For Truth volunteer who took pictures at the Fair:

As with previous sadistic street fairs, police non-enforcement was so lax that deviant, homosexual sex acts were allowed to go on in the streets as fair attendees passed on by. In his 50-minute stint, Ron photographed two oral sex acts at Up Your Alley - one in which a man “serviced” two men in uniforms, and the other involving two men engaged in fellatio directly in front of a booth. No action by either the police or a private “Folsom Security” staffer was taken against the law-breakers . . .

There is just one problem as I see it. Amidst the pictures is one that stands out - a naked heterosexual couple (don't click on this link if you have a low tolerance for grossness).

So why is this significant? Well to me, it underlines LaBarbera's anti-gay bias.

Look, I am by no means defending how folks behave at these street fairs but as I understand it, this event includes more than gay men walking around nude. As the picture I mentioned demonstrates, there were obviously some heterosexuals there acting unprincipled.

But yet instead of making a possible good point about lewdness in general, LaBarbera's commentary omits the heterosexual couple and goes straight for the gay jugular.

I've never been to one of these events and don't plan to go anytime soon. But fair is fair. And LaBarbera's attempts to attack gays for their behavior while giving heterosexuals a pass for the possible same behavior says more about him than it does about the people whose pictures are posted on his webpage.

More proof of Paul Cameron's influence - For those who would minimize the role of discredited researcher Paul Cameron on the lgbt struggle for equality, check out this clip featuring an elected official (with voting power) repeating Cameronesque lies:

Inner Light Ministries in the District's H Street corridor might seem like a traditional black church, with fiery sermons, electric gospel music, a soulful choir and a congregation that sways and claps in rhythm. But it is hardly that.

For 16 years, it has served as a sanctuary for a small community of black gays and lesbians who say they feel shunned from all directions -- by black men and women who give them cutting looks of disapproval, by mainstream black ministers who condemn homosexuality, and by white gays who make them feel unwelcome in subtle ways, such as switching from hip-hop to country music in a club when too many black men hit the dance floor.

At Inner Light, members say they can be themselves. In the pews on a recent Sunday, a woman adoringly placed an arm around the shoulders of her girlfriend. A man with a linebacker's strong build sat near the front wearing mascara. And condoms sat in a basket near the door in case any worshipers wanted to grab some on their way out.

Sunday, July 26, 2009

Yet more proof regarding what I said last week about the religious right and their links to discredited researcher Paul Cameron has come about via our friend (and I use that as an extreme euphemism) Peter LaBarbera and his phony Christian group American for Truth:

LaBarbera Calls for Federal Studies on the Health Risks of Homosexual Behavior

More Dangerous than Smoking? Men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population and 800 times higher than first time blood donors, the FDA reports. When it comes to combating cigarettes, the government not only restricts, taxes and bans smoking, it also funds and encourages anti-smoking messages and advertisements. Given the immense health risks of male homosexual sex, shouldn’t the federal government do a comprehensive study on the matter, tax sodomitic establishments, and educate the public and especially young people about the dangers of “gay” sex?

Speaking Friday at the annual Reclaiming Oklahoma for Christ conference in Edmond, OK, Americans For Truth about Homosexuality (AFTAH) President Peter LaBarbera called for government study on the heath risks of homosexual behavior.

LaBarbera read from a Food & Drug Administration (FDA) report explaining why “men who have sex with men” (MSM) cannot donate blood due to the high incidence of sexually transmitted diseases linked to MSM. He noted that since government agencies and politicians are active in confronting the health risks of smoking (using taxpayer dollars), they should do the same for homosexual sex — especially between men — which appears to be as dangerous or more so than smoking cigarettes.

LaBarbera is linking badly. No study done by any medical group has said that homosexuality is as dangerous as smoking cigarettes. No legitimate researcher or physician has ever said this either.

But Paul Cameron has.

Unless I am inaccurate, it was Cameron who first espoused this lie in 2005.

Of course Cameron's claim was disputed by folks who have actual expertise in the area but he continued to persist with his charade.

Now in all honesty, some folks may dispute my links claiming that since they are "pro-gay" sources, they are biased.

Well another source here from the rightwing Free Republic bear up my contention that Cameron was the first to push the lie that "homosexuality is as dangerous as cigarette smoking:"

Studies have shown that years of smoking shortens the lifespan of the smoker from 1 to 7 years. But analysis of the age of death in Norway and Denmark for gays who are legally married suggests that engaging in homosexual behavior reduces the lifespan by 24 years!

So reported Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron at the annual convention of the Eastern Psychological Association on March 23.

"What justification is there for condemning smoking and endorsing homosexuality?" asked Dr. Paul Cameron, of the Family Research Institute, a Colorado-based think tank. "Today, all across the Western world, school children are being taught the acceptability of homosexuality and the wrongness of smoking.

So the question here is not whether or not there should be research regarding the supposed health risks of homosexuality.

The question here is why would LaBarbera, who is supposed to be a Christian man, stoop to channeling the research of a total fraud?

But here is the most important thing to remember - While Paul Cameron's name may fall back on the dungheap of ridicule, his lies will always plague the lgbt community unless we call them out every time they pop up.

Saturday, July 25, 2009

I ran into something a while back that I have been itching to show on this site.

This 1986 comic was created by a man named Dick Hafer and it is a vile representation of some of the most evil anti-gaylies out there.

This is for the many young folks who don't remember what it was like in the 1980s when the AIDS crisis was in full bloom, ignorance was all around and Paul Cameron was a credible name.

It is a representation of how far we have come and how far we have to go. You will recognize how some of the same arguments are still being used, although not as explicitly. Check out the comic's list of supporters shown on the last graphic. One of them is Beverly LaHaye, the founder of Concerned Women for America - a religious right organization that continues to fight against lgbt equality.

The next time you hear one of their representatives whining about "intolerant gays," bring this comic to his or her attention.

I bet a lot of you never heard of this 1976 movie starring star of Sanford and Son Redd Foxx and Pearl Bailey.

Be glad you didn't because nothing can prepare you for how strange it is.

Foxx has just found out that his wife, Bailey, has left him for his brother. So he goes to Los Angeles to tell his son, played by Michael Warren.

But what he doesn't know is that his son is in a same-sex relationship with a white man, Garson (Dennis Dugan). And Garson is highly, highly flamboyant. Needless to say that Foxx is not at all pleased to find out that his son is gay.

And to complicate matters, his wife pays a visit after leaving his brother.

All I can say is that they tried. Too bad that the following preview didn't include the most surreal scene of the movie where Foxx has a nightmare that he is getting an award for being the most homosexual person or something or another. The vision of Foxx with a Liberace wig and speaking with a lisp is something that I never want to see again.

(Editor's note - A reader just sent me a clip of the scene which I have just spoken of. The link is in the comments section. View it with barf bag in hand.)

Last month, our anti-gay buddy Peter LaBarbera and a few assorted (be nice, Alvin) had held a press conference in Chicago to speak against President Obama's supposed "radical homosexual appointments and overall “gay” agenda."

Well the press conference came and went, but we heard nothing about it. I couldn't find any articles about it. And Peter never mentioned it on the Americans for Truth webpage.

That is until today. Apparently, even though several religious right "dignitaries" showed up at Peter's press conference, the media took a serious rain check.

Peter alluded to this fact in a piece that I guess was supposed to make fun of the recent protest by lgbts against the San Diego Mormon Temple.

Lgbts and heterosexual allies held a "kiss-in" at the temple this week to support a gay couple cited for trespassing after they shared a kiss on temple grounds.

Apparently according to Peter, since only 30 people showed up to protest, and the media almost outnumbered the protestors (his words), then the protest was a flop.

In comparison, no media showed up at his press conference last month, and Peter was mad over that:

What is over-the-top, however, is the liberal (”mainstream”) media treating every “queer” protest and event as important news. (Meanwhile, Associated Press and all national media skipped our coalition press conference in Chicago against President Barack Obama’s “gay” agenda — held on the very day that Obama was capitulating to the “Gay” Lobby by signing an Executive Order supporting “domestic partners.”) If homosexual activists do succeed in destroying the influence of the church and ushering in the oxymoronic notion of government-supported homosexual “marriage,” the woefully biased American media will be able to claim major credit.

Twenty-five members of the media showing up at a press conference means success. No media showing up your press conference means failure, Peter.

It's one thing to be irrelevant, but it's another to flaunt your irrelevancy.

Lgbts have long suspected that no one longer cares for your ramblings, Peter. Thank you for proving our point.

Paul Cameron is the head of the Family Research Institute, an organization declared an official hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. He has been censured, rebuked, and called the carpet on numerous occasions by people on the left and the right for his tendency to use bad research techniques as well as manipulate data to claim that lgbts are leeches on society.

He has been caught making up tales about gay men castrating children in restrooms, and called out on his claims that gays have a "short life span," molest children at a high rate, and engage in extremely deviant sexual practices (including those involving feces and gerbils).

In 1983, he was dismissed from the American Psychological Association after refusing to cooperate in an investigation brought about by member complaints of his work.

Since I’ve written this series I have been disappointed with the reaction of some in the lgbt community.

"Who cares."

"This isn’t a big deal."

"Paul Cameron is just a crackpot."

"You are wasting your time talking about him."

It's a mistake to dismiss Cameron as a mere crackpot when one looks at his connection to so-called legitimate religious right groups.

He has been and still continues to be the go-to guy (although covertly at times) by them when it comes to pushing bad theories about lgbts.

In the past, they relied on Cameron heavily.

In 1991, a Colorado amendment was created to ban gay-rights ordinances. Backers of this amendment, Amendment 2, used Cameron’s data in their position statement. Also, the week before the 1992 vote over 100,000 copies of one of his pamphlets, What Homosexuals Do, went across Colorado. Not surprisingly, the amendment passed. (It was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.)

In 1994, when gays and lesbians challenged the validity of Amendment 2, state Attorney General Gail Norton paid Cameron $15,000 for his research and wanted to use him as an “expert witness.” When informed of his reputation, Norton used neither him nor his research.

Anti-gay spokesperson Robert Knight (formerly of Concerned Women for America and the Family Research Council), in 1994, cited Cameron's work in testimony in front of Congress opposing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).

Since that time, Cameron's work was cited here and there but his effectiveness lessened due to his dubious reputation.

However, he did enjoy a short resurgence when George Bush was re-elected president in 2004.

In May 2005, Cameron announced the completion of another study that supposedly proved that homosexuality is more dangerous than cigarette smoking and being overweight.

What he did was take over 10,000 obituaries from the gay newspaper the Washington Blade and compare them to a CDC report entitled AIDS Cases in Adolescents and Adults, by Age—United States, 1994-2000.

He claimed that this supported his gay life span study. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) said otherwise.

Ronald Valdiserri, deputy director of the CDC’s National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention, said Cameron uses bad methodology.

He also said:

“[The CDC] does not collect statistics on the life span of gay men. While gay men continue to be severely impacted by HIV and AIDS, AIDS-related death data cannot be used to indicate that homosexual men live shorter lives than heterosexual men overall.”

“Gay sex is a veritable breeding ground for disease. Only one percent of the homosexual population in America will die of old age. The average life expectancy for a homosexual in the United States discounting AIDS is forty-two years of age . . . A lesbian can only expect to live to be forty - five years of age . ."

Parsley now heads the Center for Moral Clarity, an organization dedicated to "Christian grassroots organization that advocates for public policies based on biblical principles."

Cameron’s claim that homosexuality is more dangerous than cigarette smoking even made its way to the lower echelons of the Bush Administration.

In July 2005, U.S. Senator Arlen Specter asked that the national Health and Human Services look at a certain web site because it allegedly showed inaccurate information about homosexuality and contraception.

The web site, 4parents.gov, received information from an organization called the National Physicians Center for Family Resources. The chairman of the National Physicians Center for Family Resources board, John Whiffen, said the organization was correct regarding what it had printed about homosexuality.

“It’s fairly well-accepted that smoking is not a good idea. It takes seven years off of your life. It appears that male homosexuality takes more than that off your life."

That's the trouble with some "crackpots." If you leave them alone to cause mischief, they will.

The lgbt community should care about Paul Cameron for a multitude of reasons. He is masquerading as a legitimate researcher and his mess continues to hurt the us.

But for me, it mostly comes down to this:

We reacted because the police kept harassing us as Stonewall,

We reacted because Anita Bryant told those lies about us in the 70's,

We reacted because of the AIDS crisis,

We reacted because of the Proposition 8 vote.

Our history seems to be a pattern of reacting.

When you react, you lash out and are on the defensive. You are not in control of the situation because you are trying to rally yourself from whatever calamity that has been thrust upon you.

And that has been our problem.

We are constantly trying to rally ourselves after being slapped. We wait until we have been wronged before we act and then we try to take care of the situation with a rushed public display of anger.

I hate to say it but let’s take a tip from those people who claim that Obama was not born in the United States.

The only reason why the "birthers" have gotten so much attention is because they have been insistent in pushing their point. They have been on the offensive from the beginning.

And we certainly have a more legitimate case than the "birthers." Paul Cameron has made a career out of lying about the lgbt community. He couldn’t be believed if his blood was replaced with truth serum.

Yet the right continues to cite him either overtly or covertly.

But we are just sitting by and letting it happen without challenge.

We are wasting a valuable opportunity to not only put the religious right on the defensive but bring attention to the fact that they are neither religious in their tactics nor right in their claims.

Sometimes winning the fight is not reacting after being kicked but doing the kicking yourself.

With that in mind, please be aware of the following:

According to the webpage Box Turtle Bulletin, Cameron's work continues to be cited in the following pieces, which are still present and available on each corresponding group's webpage:

About Me

Alvin McEwen is 46-year-old African-American gay man who resides in Columbia, SC.
McEwen's blog, Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters, and writings have been mentioned by Americablog.com, Goodasyou.org, People for the American Way, PageOneQ.com, The Washington Post, Raw Story, The Advocate, Media Matters for America, Crooksandliars.com, Thinkprogress.org, Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish, Melissa Harris-Perry, The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, Newsweek, The Daily Beast, The Washington Blade, and Foxnews.com.
In addition, he is also a past contributor to Pam's House Blend,Justice For All, LGBTQ Nation, and Alternet.org. He is a present contributor to the Daily Kos and the Huffington Post,
He is the 2007 recipient of the Harriet Daniels Hancock Volunteer of the Year Award and the 2010 recipient of the Order of the Pink Palmetto from the SC Pride Movement as well as the 2009 recipient of the Audre Lorde/James Baldwin Civil Rights Activist Award from SC Black Pride. In addition, he is a three-time nominee of the Ed Madden Media Advocacy Award from SC Pride.